Patriarchy, Puritanism and Politics: the Letters of Lady Brilliana Harley (1598–1643)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing in the old Dictionary of National Biography , Sidney Lee described Lady Brilliana Harley as a ‘letter-writer’, and it is largely through the nineteenth-century edition of her letters, published by the Camden Society, that Lady Brilliana is still known today. 1 The majority of the 205 letters in the Camden edition were written from her home of Brampton Bryan in Herefordshire to her eldest son Edward between 1638, when he went to Oxford University, and 1643, when his mother died. They have been widely cited as evidence of the maternal and religious concerns of a seventeenth-century puritan gentlewoman, and Lee described them as ‘chiefly remarkable for their proofs of maternal affection. They abound in domestic gossip, religious reflections and sound homely advice.’ 2 Lee, however, underplayed the fact that a civil war was in the making when these letters were written. As a staunch puritan and parliamentarian, Lady Brilliana was engaged in the religious and political debates that led to warfare and, as I have remarked elsewhere, her letters ‘contain the most detailed information that we have about the outbreak of the civil war in Herefordshire’. They also record the active local political role that could be played by a woman during the civil war period. 3 These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".